Here's a bit of word play for you, stemming from an discussion on the LA board about the Worst Restaurants in LA. Naturally, some of the usual suspects are brought up, usually chains or old grimy shacks, but every now and then someone responds with a fairly well-heeled establishment.
So I'm here to discuss the notion of a restaurant that's bad vs overrated. I think there's a marked difference between a restaurant that's overrated and a restaurant that's bad. I think Matsuhisa is overrated but it's far from bad. I think Domino's Pizza is bad but no one rates it, let alone overrates it.
Disappointment is a phenomenon that exists on a person-to-person basis, stemming from their own Expectation.
Being a bad restaurant is intrinsic to the restaurant, stemming from a lack of Quality.
And being Overrated is when your Expectation doesn't meet the actual Quality. A restaurant you know nothing about can't be Overrated (no Expectations), nor can a restaurant that doesn't exist (no Quality).
So a question for my fellow 'Hounds is this: does the fact that a restaurant is overrated lead you to calling it bad and vice versa? Or do you view a restaurant in two separate ways?